Gay/Lesbian adoptions

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

I think several people in here (including me) have given a very definitive reply. To sum it up:

Gender of parents cant/shouldnt play the decisive role about if or if not a couple can adopt a child.

That is an opinion, and not a definitve answer. Not enough social studies have been undertaken to give an exact answer, and because it is dealing with children, who are all different and need different things, science couldm't give an exact formula.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

GD I underestimated you and I apologise. You have with only the exception of Forest all posted well thought out and liberal responses.

Now as to the actual topic. I feel I must once again be the voice of boring old reality but:

Single People are already allowed to adopt children.

No distinction is made on the basis of the single person's sexuality. So what the presents law against gay couples adopting does is force one of the gay couple to adopt the child on his/her own. This seems unnecessarilly silly.

I don't see hwo my thoughts are any less well thought out. I have the experience of working with whole groups of children for over 10 years, across the age ranges, so I am talking with some knowledge.

On the subject of single parent adoptions, I don't agree with them either. I stand by the point I made that children should have a male/female close to them.
I dont think it is a coincedence that the rise in parents going out to work, leaving children in others care, and the rise in lack of discipline/lowering of standards has followed each other.

I will concede however, after talking to colleagues in real life, and listenig on here, that whilst a male/female is better for the child, that subsequently having male/male or female/female is better than having no-one (ie being stuck in a home).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Forest

and because it is dealing with children, who are all different and need different things, science couldm't give an exact formula.

That doesn't make "just guessing" an acceptable alternative.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Forest

On the subject of single parent adoptions, I don't agree with them either. I stand by the point I made that children should have a male/female close to them.
I dont think it is a coincedence that the rise in parents going out to work, leaving children in others care, and the rise in lack of discipline/lowering of standards has followed each other.

With the greatest respect what you have is not a point but a belief.

You've provided no evidence to support your statement.

Secondly, once again bringing in that boring old addition to a debate: 'reality'.
1) What evidence do you have to suggest that there is a "rise in lack of discipline/lowering of standards".
2) before the end of WWII a huge portion of children had severely restricted access to their mothers and almost non existant contact with their fathers. This is because even lower middle class families used nannies to raise children (oh and in working class families the father would still have little to no contact through work hours).

You seem to hold a rather 'chocolate box' idealised version of the realities of how children were brought up in the past. This fantasy may explain why you cling so strongly to your belief that "that children should have a male/female close to them."

children require a stable environment, physical protection from harm, water, food and education.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That doesn't make "just guessing" an acceptable alternative.

It is not guessing, it is giving an experienced view.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Secondly, once again bringing in that boring old addition to a debate: 'reality'.
1) What evidence do you have to suggest that there is a "rise in lack of discipline/lowering of standards".
2) before the end of WWII a huge portion of children had severely restricted access to their mothers and almost non existant contact with their fathers. This is because even lower middle class families used nannies to raise children (oh and in working class families the father would still have little to no contact through work hours).

You seem to hold a rather 'chocolate box' idealised version of the realities of how children were brought up in the past. This fantasy may explain why you cling so strongly to your belief that "that children should have a male/female close to them."

children require a stable environment, physical protection from harm, water, food and education.

Good points, and ones which I shall address when I get home from my weekend away (best mate getting married etc)

On your last point, children need a lot more than that, and I will address that point also.

Cya all later.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Ste

Anyway, the choice is not usually between a same sex couple or a different sex couple but between any couple or none.

Best point in the thread.

Far too many people who oppose same-sex adoption seem to be presuming that were a same-sex couple to adopt, they would be snatching a child away from a mixed-sex family also waiting to adopt it.

In reality of course there are hundreds of thousands of children awaiting adoption in the US alone, and since the vast majority of adoptees choose fair-skinned, fair-haired children under 2 years old, most of the rest face not being adopted and being brought up by the state or in temporary or foster homes.

So, can you really argue that adoption by a same sex family would be worse than not being adopted at all?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Forest

It is not guessing, it is giving an experienced view.

Circumstantial evidence might as well be "just guessing" in something that requires such a large sample size as this.

[eJohn]

Surely depends on the sex of the child? Sons are closer to their fathers, daughters closer to their mothers. Can you honestly say your parents mean the same to you, have been exactly as useful to your upbringing?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by eJohn

Can you honestly say your parents mean the same to you, have been exactly as useful to your upbringing?

Most certainly not. However...

Originally Posted by eJohn

Surely depends on the sex of the child? Sons are closer to their fathers, daughters closer to their mothers.

...I'd say I'm almost certainly closer to my mother and she definitely did more for me directly in my upbringing. Really, when you're generalising by splitting the human race in two just presume you're wrong and don't say anything at all.

[mist]

why is it that people keep stating that hetro couples raise children better than single sex couples, when it's been pointed out several times that this is fairly irrelevant to the discussion?

i've read little comparison between gay couples and a home, or even gay couples and a single parent (tho, i'm not convinced this is particularly relevant either).

any experience teaching kids from a children's home forest?

oh, and i agree with the previous post